Natural Selection

Natural selection to me has always been an excuse for things that were made by design, and this is one of the reasons: Sharks have camo in that their underside is white, to match with the ocean from below, and their topside is grey, to hide from above. Most fish have this, but how did they come to have it? 

This should be a good conversation

I hope so *rubs hands together*

I have long been thinking about this subject, but with no evolutionists around I have just thought about it.

Here's another thing: The smallest gecko in the world lives in wet conditions, and with something that small if it got into water it would drown because of the surface tension, but it doesn't because it has super water repellent skin. Did its ancestor drown one time and then it somehow knew that it needed water repelling skin?  What happened there?

I had no evolutionists to talk about it. Now I'm here.

Good topic Jay! I think that one of the major flaws in this argument for evolution by the evidence of natural selection is this: in order for evolution to be true, many functions that would have had to develop in certain animals would have had to develop one part at a time.  Most of these functions must have all the parts in order to work together in the perfect way that our Creator designed them to work.  Evolution cannot be true because if each of the parts of these functions had developed one part at a time, all of that species that is supposedly developing that ability would be dead and as one evolutionist turned creationist pointed out, dead animals can't evolve.

People say there where mutations and it got its "upgrade" all at once

They have it because of the precise gene variants they have.

According to the theory of evolution, the specific gene variants that cause it have arisen by mutation and have been selected by natural selection.

Without knowing the details, I would hypothesise that this is parallel evolution rather than all such fish being descendents of an ancient fish that had this pattern. If so, the mutations that cause it will vary quite a lot.

That is an example of evolution.

Underwater camouflage

No, you have just made that up, haven't you?

Darwin himself admitted that the process of Natural Selection is so subtle that it gives the impression of purposeful design!

But a more important question - do the skeptics of evolution posting here accept that the Earth is at least 4 billion years old?

If a person refuses to accept the best established estimates for the age of the Earth (about 4.6 billion years) then any discussion about evolution becomes redundant because evolutionary processes take geological time to take effect.

Putting that another way, it's absurd to believe in evolution if you sincerely believe that our planet was created less than 10,000 years ago.

That is just complete nonsense. There is conclusive evidence of the great age of the Earth. For example the dozens of examples across the world of the entire geologic column back to the pre-Cambrian, all containing layers which are dated to show the more than 500,000,000 year period involved. Explanations of this by creationists are at the level of those of a 5 year old.

Science deniers find it essential to ignore the fact that many rocks can be dated in 6 or more independent ways - which have no reason  to agree other than that they are right - and that these dates agree to within with agreement to within about 1%. These rocks have ages up to over 4 billion years ago. Without ignoring such things, they would stop being wrong, which would be a disaster.

You have the Moon canard both (1) back to front and (2) wrong (in that you don't know why the argument fails).

Firstly the Moon is MOVING AWAY FROM the Earth. So the longer time passes the further away it gets, at a very slow rate. 

If you assume the tidal transfer of angular momentum has always been exactly the same as it is now, you find that the Moon would have been in contact with the Earth a couple of billion years ago (note this is a few hundred thousand times the YEC age of the Earth and MUCH nearer the real age!).

However, it is known the Earth has not always been the way it is now. The present continents are moving apart and calculations show they separated from a single continent hundreds of millions of years ago. In the very ancient times there was probably no land at all.

The effect of this is that the transfer of angular momentum to the Moon was much less in the past than now, and so it has taken longer to get to its present position, long enough to cover the age of the Earth-Moon system.

Note that the science is way ahead of the anti-science here. The time scale is almost right with the simplistic assumption that nothing has changed, and the independently known information about what has changed corrects it in exactly the right direction to be compatible with independent information about the Earth-Moon system forming early in Earth's history from a massive impact.

If you are a typical YEC, you will probably trot out the same long falsified claim again in the future.

btw the earth is slowing fdown with its spinning at a very little margin a year...  I guess the dinosaurs died from the earth spinning too fast. XD

The geologic column is trash.... Fossils can form quickly, like the standing fossilized trees people find around the world... Proof of a quick flood? I believe so..

The evidence we present that strongly indicates an ancient Earth is questioned only by people who come with an agenda to discredit anything that conflicts with their Biblical dogma. There're many people of strong faith who fully accept the conclusions of geologists concerning the age of the Earth & biologists concerning evolution.

People who're genuinely searching for answers & come with a sincere desire to better inform themselves on subjects like dating & evolution are worth the time spent to explain it to them. I'm afraid that dogmatists are not worth spending time on.

You need to decide which group you belong to.

I know that evolutionists think it took billions of years to happen, but I don't believe that personally. But I can accept the fact that for evolution to happen it takes billions of years.

Maybe I miss understood. I thought you guys say NS comes through mutations 

punctuated equilibrium